Britain lost a significant portion of its rail network in the 1960s as a result of the Beeching Report. Tasked with improving British Railways’ finances, then-chairman Richard Beeching closed one third of the country’s 7,000 stations, and took 5,000 miles of train lines out of service. Whilst most urban rail networks were left intact, cuts were felt in rural areas, with many towns and villages losing their rail connection.
However, the demands of the rural rail network in the 21st century are different to those experienced by Beeching. According to the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), there is an ‘underlying trend of rising passenger numbers on the rural railways’, with some lines experiencing a 55% increase in passengers. Inevitably affected somewhat by a financial awareness brought about by the current economic climate, this increase in train use has also been attributed to Community Rail Partnerships (CRPs) – organisations made up of rail operators, the voluntary sector, and local authorities.
Called ‘grassroots organisations which aim to link local railways more closely with the communities they serve’ by Transport Regeneration Limited, CRPs promote rural rail services in order to encourage rural regeneration, with the ATOC’s statistics suggesting they have had a positive impact. However, this positive impact is more than just increased passenger numbers. The fact that CRPs are a mix of service providers, authorities, and volunteers from the local area is also beneficial in creating socially sustainable rural communities. Despite the differing objectives of each stakeholder, it is the collaborative nature of a CRP that allows them to most efficiently achieve their goals. If achieved, these goals then bring direct benefits to rural communities, with the fact that community collaboration allowed the goals to be achieved hopefully sending a positive message to rural areas on what can be achieved when people from different backgrounds work together.
Similar efforts have also been witnessed in Canada, where one rural line closure encouraged 180 farmers to work together in creating a ‘producer car group’. Discouraged by a local rail company’s suggestions that farm produce was transported by truck to the nearest active rail line, a small group of farmers purchased rail cars and began operating on the unused track, with the numbers of those involved soon increasing.
Beeching believed his reactions were appropriate considering his goal of improving British Railways’ finances. However, with passenger numbers now increasing in the rural areas of Britain fortunate enough to retain their train stations, it is possible that he was short-sighted in his efforts. What Beeching understood accurately, however, was the difficulty of integrating a train station in the culture of a local rural community. As a result of low population density and scattered distribution, it is not geographically feasible for rural train stations to be easily accessible for everyone in the countryside, meaning car ownership is likely to remain higher per capita than in urban areas. Despite the potential practicality of a rural train station, with increased car ownership, rural dependance on the train network is inevitably reduced.
Photo: Rishi Mohan
